Abortion on Trial – a review
Anne Robinson’s hour long TV programme “Abortion on Trial” (Oct 16, BBC2, 9 p.m. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09b1z7n/abortion-on-trial) marked 50 years since the passing of the 1967 Abortion Act. It consisted of a fly on the wall recording of discussions held over a weekend at her home in Gloucestershire featuring eight women, all of whom had had abortions ( as had Anne herself), and a man who had objected to his partner aborting their baby. At the outset Anne Robinson remarked that a third of women in the UK had had an abortion.
At the end of the programme Anne summed up that ‘the majority’ of the participants agreed that the law should be updated to allow for non-surgical abortions at home. This was always going to be the conclusion since the majority of those participating believed in the untramelled right to choose. There was no real discussion on this apart from opposition from a token man, who opposed abortion. Only one woman was opposed to abortion on principle because it was the killing of children. The man and the woman who were against abortion were always made to feel on the back foot – their views were challenged continually.
To address the question of whether there should be a limit on the age at which a foetus can be aborted, the neo-natal doctor brought in argued that viability was no longer a criterion because advances in medical science meant embryos could be viable at a much earlier stage and even be lodged in an artificial womb. It therefore all depended on context. This appeared to be saying that it is the woman’s choice whether and at what stage she would like to abort the baby, and arbitrary limits such as 24 weeks should not be set.
All were against abortion on the grounds of discovered gender because that would be gender discrimination. This was assumed without discussion. So “do not discriminate on the basis of gender” has a higher value than “do not kill”.
There was no discussion of the issue of principle about the reality and value of another human life. Neither was there any exploration of the bald assertion ” you do not have the right by way of the criminal law to force beliefs on others.”
While all the stories were moving and told with great feeling and sincerity, this was TV advocacy for further relaxation of the current law, with no real exposure or discussion of the issues at stake.
Fairness and balance on which the BBC prides itself require an equal amount of time now be given to other sides of the argument: from those who regret their abortions; from those opposed to abortion, in all except medical emergencies, not lifestyle choices; from those with diagnosed disabled foetuses, from neo-natal specialists such as Professor John Wyatt; from lawyers; from fathers; from those campaigning to lower the ‘age-limit’ for aborting foetuses. There is a major public debate out there and major arguments which were ignored.
I had a brother, now deceased, who had acondroplasia, enlarged head, diminished frame and bandy legs. Such people are rarely seen today. Though not expected to last beyond his teenage years he lived into his fifties as a productive member of society. He once remarked: “Had the abortion law been in force when I was being expected, I would not have been allowed to have a life.”
Abortion was in no way on trial in the programme – it was celebrated and advocated.
Chris Sugden
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
